---

The recent assassination attempt against US President Donald Trump was a stark reminder of how fragile political stability can be, even in a major democracy. Political violence can never be justified under any circumstances. Regardless of political preference or policy disagreement, the use of violence against a political leader crosses a line that must remain absolute.

One encouraging aspect of this episode was the unified response from leaders around the world. Governments across regions expressed relief at Trump’s safety and condemned the attack in clear and strong terms. This collective reaction deserves recognition. It reaffirmed a basic but essential principle: Disagreements must be resolved through dialogue, not force. This is particularly meaningful given that relations between Trump and leaders in other democracies have recently been strained over the US strikes on Iran. Furthermore, this response carries broader significance. At a time when many observers worry that the liberal international order is weakening or fragmenting, the near-universal rejection of political violence suggests that its core norms still endure. In that sense, the global reaction was not only appropriate but also reassuring, an indication that the foundational values of the international system have not disappeared.

At the same time, the incident invites reflection. It should not be interpreted as a direct outcome of policy disagreements. Such a conclusion would be misleading. Yet it highlights the risks that emerge when political discourse becomes increasingly confrontational and when established norms are repeatedly challenged or disregarded. Trump’s governing style has often been defined by a willingness to break with traditions. His challenge to entrenched interests of the establishments has resonated with many who feel excluded or overlooked. In that respect, his political rise reflects a real demand for change. Questioning established systems is not inherently problematic; in many cases, it could be necessary.

But there is a difference between reform and rule-breaking. That distinction is where responsible leadership is tested. People do not follow rules because they are simply naive or unaware of alternatives. They do so because they believe that respecting others and adhering to shared norms ultimately serves the common good. When that belief is weakened, the foundation of fair competition and mutual trust begins to erode.

A political strategy that relies heavily on disregarding rules, bypassing norms, or employing tactics that resemble “bending the game” may generate short-term advantages. Yet it can also erode trust and cause a mirroring effect. When political competition shifts from rule-based contestation to perceived unfairness, it risks becoming less predictable and more volatile. Experience suggests that political environments shaped by persistent rule-breaking often become more unstable, and those who rely on foul play may eventually face even more vicious rule-breakers.

This concern extends beyond domestic politics. The liberal international order, for all its imperfections, is not an abstract theory but the repository of hard-won human experience. Born from the ashes of conflict and the countless deaths of innocent people, it provides a system to manage differences without force. Since the end of the Cold War, when the world moved closer to a more interconnected global community, it has served as the bedrock for global stability, reducing uncertainty through common rules. To dismiss or dismantle this framework without careful consideration is therefore not simply to challenge a set of policies. It is to disregard a body of shared experience and wisdom that has helped limit conflict and facilitate cooperation on a global scale.

Violence must therefore be understood in a broader sense. Political assassination is the most visible and immediate form, but it is not the only kind. The use of force among nations, including preemptive war, also represents a form of organized violence, even when pursued under claims of necessity or national interest. Decisions that lead to armed conflict carry profound human and political consequences, and they should be approached with the utmost restraint.

This year, the United States at the direction of President Trump has engaged in military actions, including large-scale airstrikes on Iran. Such decisions, whatever their strategic rationale, remind us that the boundary between policy and violence is not always clear-cut. When force becomes a readily available tool of statecraft, the risks of escalation increase, and the norms that restrain violence can gradually weaken. We must bridge the gap between domestic stability and foreign policy. The norms that sustain order at home cannot be separated from those that govern the use of force abroad.

This is why leadership matters. Leadership at the highest level is not only about advancing interests or achieving results. It is also about maintaining the norms that make political and international order possible. Words, tone and decisions set the parameters of acceptable behavior. When leaders reinforce rules and exercise restraint, they strengthen stability. When they consistently disregard those norms, they may contribute to a more uncertain world.

The global response to the assassination attempt demonstrates that there remains a shared commitment to rejecting violence. That consensus should not be taken for granted. It is the product of historical experience and collective learning, and it must be sustained. For Trump, this moment may serve as an opportunity. Surviving such an incident might invite reflection, not only on personal security but also on the broader political context. It can offer a chance to reconsider the balance between disruption and responsibility, between challenging systems and preserving the rules that keep them functioning.

Ultimately, the lesson is not about one leader alone. It is about the boundaries that define political life and are shared by people around the world. Violence must remain outside those boundaries, whether in the form of assassination or war. The more difficult task is ensuring that political conduct, at every level, reinforces that principle rather than undermines it. That responsibility rests most heavily on those who lead, because when rules are weakened at the top, they rarely hold elsewhere.

Wang Son-taek is an adjunct professor at Sogang University. 

This article was originally published on Korea Herald.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.